Criminal Procedure Crim Pro Crim Pro Cases Criminal Procedure CaseFull description
Comida francesaDescripción completa
Descripción completa
WESTMONT INVESTMENT vs. FRANCIA, JR. G.R. No. 194128, Decembe !, 2"11 J. Me#$o%&
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FACTS Francias fled Complaint or Collection o Sum o Money and Damages arising rom their investments against Wincorp and Pearlbank beore RC! Wincor ncorp p and Pear earlba lbank fled fled separ epara ate Motions to Dismiss" both #ere anchored on ground that Francias Francias ailed to state a cause o action! RC issued order dismissing MD o both or lac lack o merit erit!! Winc incorp orp fled led $ns ns# #er% er% Pearlba Pearlbank nk fled $ns#er $ns#er #ith Counterc Counterclaim laim and Crossclaim &against Wincorp'! (n the the pre)t pre)tri rial al orde orderr issu issued ed by the the RC part partie ies s agr agreed eed that that &*' &*' plai plaint nti+ i+s s do not not have ave per personal nal kno# kno#lledge edge as to W(, Pearlbank indeed borro#ed unds allegedly invested by plainti+ rom Wincorp and &-' that the alleged confrmation advices #hich indicate Pearlbank as alleged borro#er o the unds allegedly invested by plainti+s in Wincorp do not bear signature or ackno#ledgement ackno#ledgement o Pearlbank! Pearlbank! .n *///% $mos Francia #as convinced by the bank manager o Westmont 0ank to make an inves vestmen tmentt in Winco ncorp! Sinc ince the interest rate o+ered #as impressive% 12 to 32 higher higher than regular regular bank investment% investment% $mos #as convinced! 4e invited his siblings to 5oin in the investment and so they invested P*!6M 7 P-!3M #ith net interest rate o **2 over 61)day spread! When the investment investment matured% matured% the Francia rancia siblings demanded the retirement o their investment but Wincorp 8rolled)over9 their place laceme men nts and iss issued Conf Confrrmati matio on $dvices or another 16 days! $t the the same same time time%% Winco incorp rp advi advise sed d the the Francias that their money #as borro#ed by Pear Pearlba lbank! nk! When When the e:ten e:tensio sion n asked asked by Westmon estmontt e:pir e:pired% ed% they they again again #ere #ere not able to pay up and so the Francias sued Westm estmon ontt .nve .nvest stme ment nt!! Pearl earlba bank nk #as #as impleaded in the complaint! Wincorp #as unable to present their evidence" denied their Motion to Postpone by RC and considered to have #aived its righ rightt to pres presen entt evid eviden ence ce!! RC rule ruled d in avour o Francias and held that Wincorp is
•
solely solely liable liable to them! them! Winco Wincorp rp fled fled MR ; denied! C$ a
(E)D =>S Sec!16% Rule *1- o Rules on >vidence 8court shall consider no evidence #hich has not been been or ormall mally y o+er o+ered ed!! he he purp purpos ose e or or #hic #hich h the the evid eviden ence ce is o+er o+ered ed must must be specifed!9 $ttached documents in MR &RC' cannot be give given n any any prob probat ativ ive e #eigh eightt or cred credit it because the documents #ere not ormally o+ered as evidence in trial court! >stabl tabliished by the the oral evid eviden enc ce and confrmed by Confrmat mation $dvices% Francias ailed to get their investment ater 61 days and #as rolled over or another 16 days" Wincorp never negated these saying it merely acted as an agent o Francias and Pearlbank is the actual borro#er! 8Cont Contra ract ct o agen agency cy9 9 and and that that Pearl earlba bank nk recei eceive ved d Franc rancia ias s mone money y #er #ere neve neverr proven! he act that Pearlbank Pearlbank #as printed in Confrmation $dvices does not automatically makes it liable to Francias as noth nothin ing g ther therei ein n sh sho# o#s s that that Pearl earlba bank nk adhe adherred or ackn ackno# o#le ledg dged ed that that it is the the actual borro#er! borro#er! ?uestion o la#" fndings o C$ are fnal 7 conclusive! .n contract o agency% a person binds himsel to render some service or to something in representation or on behal o another #ith the authority or consent o the latter! >lem >lemen ents ts o coa@ coa@ &*' &*' cons consen ent% t% e:pr e:pres ess s or implie implied" d" &-' &-' ob5ect ob5ect is the e:ecu e:ecutio tion n o a 5uridical act in relation relation to a third person" &1' agents act as a representative and not or himsel" &6' agent acts #ithin the scope o his authority! authority! Principal)agent relationship bet#een Francias and Wincorp #as not duly established by evidence! he record does not sho# that Wincorp merely brokered loan transaction bet#een bet#een Francias rancias and Pearlba Pearlbank nk and the latt latter er #as #as the the actu actual al recip ecipie ient nt o the the
Wincorp to borro# money or it! ,either #as there a ratifcation% e:pressly or implied! here #as not even a promissory note validly and duly e:ecuted by Pearlbank #hich #ould in any #ay serve as evidence o borro#ing! Francias had no personal kno#ledge i Pearlbank #as indeed the recipientBbenefciary o their investments! he Francias have al#ays maintained that
they only transacted #ith Westmont .nvestment and never #ith Pearlbank! he act that the Francias impleaded Pearlbank in their suit is understandable &it does not deeat their suit' because they only impleaded Pearlbank to protect their interest #hen they ound out that Westmont #as already bankrupt!
